Intelligible Beauty| 203

In Byzantium, as in other medieval societies, ear ornaments

represented one of the most prominent and certainly most
ubiquitous elements of the female attire. Although numerous
Byzantine ornaments falling into this category have been
published to date, little attention has been dedicated to
tackling the problem of how such objects were actually worn.
This is particularly true for the ornaments which, based on
certain criteria, are believed not to have been worn by
threading through the earlobe, but to have been suspended by
various means from the hair or headdress; for better or worse,
these are generally referred to by scholars as temple
pendants,
1
or headdress rings.
2
A useful contribution towards the understanding of the
wearing practices of Byzantine and other medieval ear
ornaments is supplied by archaeological evidence from the
territory of medieval Rus, which has accumulated in the course
of the past century or so. Recent studies by scholars such as M.
A. Saburova, A.S. Agapov and T.G. Saraeva
3
have put such
evidence to good use and introduced fascinating new insights
into the old debate of how such ornaments were worn in Rus. It
is the aim of the present paper to provide a brief review of the
Rus evidence and of the recent developments on the subject, in
view of the implications this material may have for the study of
Byzantine and other contemporary ear ornaments.
4
The
discussion will focus on those ornaments which were worn
suspended from the hair or headdress (rather than being worn
through the earlobe), since I believe that the latter objects have
been poorly understood in past scholarship on Byzantine
jewellery.
The study of the wearing methods in medieval Rus consists
entirely of archaeological evidence, as ear ornaments with
suspension equipment are neither mentioned in the written
sources, nor depicted in the extant visual sources.
5
However,
before proceeding to examine the Rus evidence in question, it
is necessary to note first the distinction made by Russian and
Ukrainian scholars between the different categories of ear or
temple ornaments, as this issue is closely related to the
perception of how the respective objects were worn.
Two categories are of interest here. The first comprises
hollow crescent-shaped, circular and star-shaped ear
ornaments, since the late 19th century uniformly referred to as
kolty () or kolti () in Russian and Ukrainian
respectively (Pls 14).
6
The term, which is now used exclusively
to designate this type of medieval jewellery, originally derives
from the Old Slavonic word for earrings or ear ornaments
(s+a++su/seae+su/sea+su),
7
variants of which were still in use
on the territory of Russia and Ukraine in the second half of the
19th century,
8
when the artefacts now generally known as
kolty were first published. The second category consists of
ornaments labelled descriptively by archaeologists as temple
rings (Rus. , Ukr. ), after the
part of the head at which they are believed to have been worn.
These include a wide range of types, from simple loops of wire
with or without spiral or S-shaped terminals, through hoops
decorated with one, three or more beads or rhomboid sheets, to
elaborate crescent-shaped ornaments with triangular or axe-
like protrusions along their lower rim (Pl. 5).
9
Some of the ear
ornaments of the latter types are also occasionally called
earrings (Rus. /, Ukr. /),
10
a term
rarely applied to kolty.
11
As extant written sources indicate, all
these terms were indeed used in medieval Rus to designate ear
ornaments (seau: 11th century; s+a++su/seae+su: 12th
century; ccpru: 14th century),
12
but there is little evidence to
suggest the shape, construction or wearing method of the
objects they referred to.
13
A notable exception is the reference
to ear ornaments in the 11th-century Lection on the life and
slaying of the blessed martyrs Boris and Gleb, according to
which objects designated as seau were worn on the ears,
14

presumably threaded through the earlobe. Hence, it is clear
that, despite its use of historic terms, the present-day
archaeological taxonomy of Rus ear ornaments does not
reflect the medieval written evidence, as it is entirely based on
modern pre-conceptions. It will moreover become evident
below that the archaeological evidence from medieval Rus
burials also does not support the rigid classification framework
which has been heretofore applied to it.
Kolty
The discussion on how kolty were worn has mainly revolved
around a particular type of strap which occurs in pairs in
hoards on the territory of medieval Rus. These are made either
of gold and silver plates in circular, quatrefoil, or rectangular
shape connected to one another by a hinge joint,
15
or of ribbed
semi-cylinders made in the same materials and held together
by metal or linen threads.
16
Both variants terminate at one end
in a small chain, and at the other in an open hoop which was
probably secured by a small pin or wire. The most commonly
reproduced reconstruction, proposed first by B.A. Rybakov in
the 1940s, has these straps with kolty attached at the lower
end suspended from the top of a tall hat or crown, dangling
freely while reaching down as far as the chest or shoulders.
17

Although Rybakovs arguments regarding this matter were
plausibly refuted by G.F. Korzuhina shortly thereafter
18
and
scholars are far from unanimous on the use of the straps
(which have been variously identified as suspension chains,
necklaces, and bracelets),
19
his reconstruction still remains
influential and different versions of it continue to be
reproduced in recent publications (Pl. 6).
20

Subsequent archaeological finds have, however, shown that
Rybakovs view concerning the wearing of kolty can no longer
be sustained. Thus, a silver pair, found in situ within a female
burial at Rajkovetskoe Gorodie, and which were attached to
Temple Pendants in Medieval Rus:
How were they Worn?
Natalija Ristovska
204 | Intelligible Beauty
Ristovska
Plate 1 Gold and enamelled kolt found at Knjaa
Gora (12th13th century)
Plate 4 Gold kolt found at Kiev (12th13th
century)
Plate 2 Silver and niello kolt found at Kiev
(12th13th century)
Plate 3 Kolt of lead-tin alloy found at Novgorod
(13th century)
Plate 5 Temple rings found on the territory of medieval Rus (10th/11th14th century)
Intelligible Beauty | 205
Temple Pendants in Mediaeval Rus
two silver straps of the type employed in Rybakovs
reconstruction,
21
leaves little room for doubt as to how these
ornaments had been worn: the straps had evidently been
secured to each other to form a diadem around the head, while
the kolty had been suspended at the sides from the short chains
connecting the straps (Pl. 7). This wearing method is further
substantiated by the finds in a hoard unearthed in 1911 near the
Tithe church in Kiev, where the end chains of two gold straps of
the second variant are said to have been threaded through the
suspension hoops of enamelled kolty made in the same
material.
22
While two hoards found at Staraja Rjazan
23
seem to
suggest that metal straps constructed of ribbed semi-
cylindrical elements were indeed used for suspending the kolty
from the headdress,
24
it should be noted that these are
significantly shorter than the straps employed in Rybakovs
reconstruction
25
and terminate at both ends in a small closed
hoop, one presumably for attaching the kolt to the strap, the
other for fastening the strap to the headdress (Pls 8ab and 9).
Organic remains found on some of the Rjazan fragments
indicate that the semi-cylindrical elements and the triangular
terminals had been held together by coarse linen threads,
while the entire strap had been sewed onto a leather lining.
26

There may also have been alternative, hitherto
unidentified, methods for securing kolty to the headdress.
27

One, or more, of them probably involved the large coiled wire
devices which were attached to the suspension hoop of the
silver kolty found in a hoard at Svjatoe Ozero near ernigov
(Pl. 10).
28
Identical objects, termed temple rings by the
archaeologists who published them, have recently turned up in
another hoard at Gubin (in Ukraine) together with two pairs of
Plate 6 Reconstruction of the wearing style of crescent-shaped kolty (M.
Rusjaeva)
Plate 7 Silver headband with a pair of
kolty attached to it, Rajkovetskoe
Gorodie (12th13th century)
Plates 8a-b Straps with kolty attached, found at Staraja Rjazan (12th13th
century)
206 | Intelligible Beauty
Ristovska
Temple rings
The objects normally referred to as temple rings by Russian
and Ukrainian scholars seem to have involved a wider range of
wearing styles than those attested for kolty. Excavations of
medieval cemeteries in northern Russia, where the soil
conditions are more favourable for the preservation of organic
materials, have, in fact, shown that the same types of temple
rings were worn in a number of different ways: threaded
through the earlobe, secured in the hair, attached directly to
the headdress, or fastened to a vertical strap which was
secured to the headdress.
As established by forensic analysis of human skin found in
medieval Rus burials, piercing along the entire length of the
earlobe and the upper part of the ear made it possible for two to
silver kolty and other jewellery (Pl. 11). In the latter case, the
coiled wire hoops occur as two sets of twelve pieces and are
made of the same material as the kolty.
29
It may be argued that
a single hoop, as those found at Svjatoe Ozero, could have
facilitated the attachment of the kolt to a separate suspension
chain or strap, or alternatively, served for fastening the kolt
directly to the hair or headdress in a way similar to a modern
hair pin; a series of interlinked hoops could have been used as a
chain for suspending the kolt from the headdress. As will be
mentioned below, the use of both wearing styles, involving
comparable hoops, has been attested for other types of
ornaments by finds in medieval Rus burials.
30
Plate 10 Silver kolt with a coiled hoop attached to it, found at Svjatoe Ozero
(12th13th century)
Plate 11 Silver kolty and coiled wire hoops found at Gubin (12th13th century)
Plate 9 Reconstruction of the wearing style of the star-shaped kolty found at
Staraja Rjazan (V.P. Frolov)
Intelligible Beauty | 207
Temple Pendants in Mediaeval Rus
size.
32
All ornaments, irrespective of type, size and the style
preferred, were worn entangled in the hair individually (Pls
12ab, fh, km and 14fg),
33
or interlinked as a chain (Pls
12ce, ij, and 14h).
34
In fact, it was not uncommon for one or
two large or more elaborate ornaments to be suspended from a
small hoop secured in the hair, which in this case acted as a
hair pin (Pls 12c, e), nor for them to be directly attached to the
hair under one or more small hoops secured in the same way
(Pls 12ab, fh, j). In some cases, it has been established that
the ornaments were threaded through or were secured by
plaits or twisted sections of hair which ran from the temples to
the back of the head (Pls 12ab, e, gh).
35
eight rings to be simultaneously worn on the ear (Pls 12n, o, q,
t and 14g); there were also instances when more than one
ornament was threaded through a single opening.
31
It is
noteworthy that some of these pieces were of not
inconsiderable size, with a suspension hoop ranging in
thickness between 1.4 and 2mm. Human remains in burials,
together with the precise location of ornaments on the body
(often revealed by oxide staining on the skeleton), have
moreover shown that up to 12 rings were worn entangled in the
hair at each side of the head, either in a cluster at the level of
the temples or ears (Pls 12ak), or arranged in a single row in
the area between the forehead and the shoulders (Pls 14fg),
the latter style usually occurring with simple hoops of small
Plate 12 Methods of wearing temple rings in Rus
208 | Intelligible Beauty
Ristovska
On the other hand, organic remains of headgear in burials
(Pl. 13) have revealed that one or more rings were worn
threaded through leather and textile straps hanging from a
headband or hat (Pls 14c, e).
36
The ornaments, in such
instances, were often arranged on the straps one above the
other in a single row stretching from the level of the temples to
the ears or neck. An alternative wearing style has been attested
by metal suspension equipment, which included straps
constructed of semi-cylindrical elements and triangular
terminals,
37
or chains made up of series of interlinked (but
detachable) small hoops (Pl. 14h).
38
In both cases, a single
ornament, usually consisting of a ring with three beads, was
suspended from the lower end of each chain or strap. Finally,
the same sort of evidence indicates that one or more ornaments
were worn attached directly to the headdress: they were either
arranged in a horizontal row on a metal headband, or threaded
through a textile (or felt) headband, hat or headscarf (Pls 12p,
rs, and 14ab, d), being usually clustered at the temples or
next to the ears.
39
Altogether, a number of general observations pertaining to
the ear or temple rings found in the territory of Rus may prove
instructive for the future study of medieval ear ornaments
recovered in excavations elsewhere (including the territory of
the Byzantine Empire).
1. It is noteworthy that ornaments belonging to a single type
were worn using more than one method of suspension. In
fact, almost all types were evidently worn threaded through
the earlobe and suspended from the hair or headdress.
2. More than one ornament was often worn at each side of the
head at the same time.
3. It was not unusual for the number of ornaments worn at
one time to differ between the left and right side of the
head.
4. The wearing of combinations of different ornament types
on each side of the head was common.
5. The same or similar types of ornaments were worn at
different spots on the sides of the head, anywhere between
the temples and the neck; simple hoops of small size were
also worn in the hair or headdress as far as the lower part of
the neck or shoulders.
6. The thickness of the suspension hoop, the securing device
and the size of the individual pieces does not seem to point
to a single wearing method. Relatively large ornaments
with a thick suspension hoop and/or overlapping or tied
terminals were worn threaded through the earlobe, while
simple, small and lightweight hoops were worn attached to
the hair or headdress.
Conclusion
Archaeological finds from the territory of medieval Rus
provide particularly revealing evidence concerning the
wearing methods of medieval ear ornaments. Several
conclusions may be drawn from the survey of this material.
While the objects in modern scholarship generally known
as kolty were evidently worn with suspension equipment
(coiled wire hoops, chains or metal straps), those termed
temple rings employed a wide range of suspension methods
which, due to the soil conditions in burials as well as other
factors, have been heretofore little attested elsewhere. These
include styles such as the wearing of ornaments on the ear by
threading the suspension hoop through the earlobe; the
securing of ornaments in the hair by plaits or twisted sections,
directly or by means of a small hoop; attaching directly to a
metal or textile headband; attaching directly to the veil or
headscarf; suspension from the headdress by means of
interlinked but detachable hoops forming a chain; as well as
Plate 13 Remains of headdresses with
temple rings attached
c
b
a
Intelligible Beauty | 209
Temple Pendants in Mediaeval Rus
suspending from vertically-arranged leather or textile straps,
which were, in turn, secured to a hat, headband or veil. The
finds in burials, moreover, attest to other wearing peculiarities
of the ornaments in question, particularly concerning the
number of pieces worn on each side of the head at one time, the
combining of different ornament types, and the exact spot on
the head where these objects were worn.
The Rus material does not only provide us with a unique
glimpse into the variety of evidence available to the
archaeologist upon careful systematic excavation; it also offers
an opportunity for valuable methodological lessons to be
learned. Closer inspection of the scholarship on the Rus finds,
for instance, reveals that the rigid archaeological taxonomies
which were applied in the past to the ornaments in question
fall short of adequately interpreting the complexities posed by
the newly-excavated archaeological material, and are the
cause of confusion and misinterpretation. On the one hand,
entire types (as defined by shape) were attributed en bloc to a
single category of ornaments, either temple rings or earrings.
On the other hand, examples of the same types of ornaments
were variously labelled temple rings and earrings within a
single publication for no apparent reason (see note 10). Recent
studies (see note 3), have shown that scholars studying this
material need to allow for more flexibility and demonstrate
more consistency in the classification and interpretation of the
available artefacts. Objects labelled temple rings, for instance,
are now known to have been worn threaded through the
earlobe as well as suspended from the hair and headdress; in
burials, they occur on the head anywhere between the temples
and the neck. Moreover, there are some indications that the
wearing of kolty involved the same suspension methods as
those attested for some of the temple rings (metal straps as
well as a single hoop, or multiple hoops interlinked as a chain),
despite the fact that they were considered two separate
categories of ornaments. We are certainly faced with similar
methodological difficulties in the study of Byzantine and other
ear ornaments: neat classification schemes pertaining to what
are, to a large extent, matters of personal choice, and based on
evidence from only a few artefacts, prove difficult to sustain.
Keeping abreast with newly excavated material, we may well
have to repeatedly readjust our perceptions (and pre-
conceptions) on the use of the artefacts we study.
Plate 14 Methods of wearing temple rings
in Rus (M.A. Saburova)
210 | Intelligible Beauty
Ristovska
Notes
1 W.D. Wixom, Temple pendant and stick, in K.R. Brown et al.,
Medieval Art and the Cloisters, The Metropolitan Museum of Art
Bulletin, n.s., 49/2 (1991), 15; W.D. Wixom, Two cloisonn enamel
pendants: the New York temple pendant and the Cleveland
enkolpion, in C. Moss and K. Kiefer (eds.), Byzantine East, Latin
West: art-historical studies in honor of Kurt Weitzmann, Princeton,
1995, 65962; W.D. Wixom, Temple pendant and stick, in H.C.
Evans and W.D. Wixom (eds), The Glory of Byzantium: art and
culture of the Middle Byzantine Era, ad 8431261, New York, 1997,
2467, no. 170; P.S. Griffin, Jewellery from Kiev, Jewellery Studies 6
(1993), 518.
2 U. Fiedler, Studien zu Grberfeldern des 6. bis 9. Jahrhunderts an der
unteren Donau, I, Bonn, 1992, 17080.
3 M.A.Saburova,enskijgolovnojuboruSlavjan(pomaterialam
Vologodskoj ekspeditsii), Sovetskaja arheologija (1974/2), 8597;
M.A.Saburova,Oenskihgolovnyhuborahsestkojosnovojv
pamjatnikah domongolskoj Rusi, Kratkie soobenija Instituta
arheologii 144 (1975), 1822; M.A. Saburova, Drevnerusskij
kostjum, in B.A. Kolin and T.I. Makarova (eds), Drevnjaja Rus: byt
i kultura, Moscow, 1997, 93109; M.A. Saburova and M.V. Sedova,
Nekropol Suzdalja , in I.P. Rusanova (ed.), Kultura i iskusstvo
srednevekovogo goroda, Moscow, 1984, 91130; A.S. Agapov and
T.G. Saraeva, O sposobah noenija viso nyh kolets, Rossijskaja
arheologija (1997/1), 99108.
4 The material included in the present paper is part of a larger
discussion dealing with the Byzantine wearing practices of ear
ornaments which will be published elsewhere.
5 G.F. Korzuhina, Russkie klady IXXIII vv., Moscow/Leningrad, 1954,
5355. Only a few mentions of ear ornaments occur in Rus written
sources of the 11th15th centuries. They provide little additional
information apart from a brief reference to the materials of which
these objects were made: G. N. Lukina, Nazvanija predmetov
ukraenija v jazyke pamjatnikov drevnerusskoj pismennosti XI
XIV vv., in R.I. Avanesov et al. (eds), Voprosy slovoobrazovanija i
leksikologii drevnerusskogo jazyka, Moscow, 1974, 248, 2501; A.A.
Zaliznjak, Drevnenovgorodskij dialekt, II, Moscow, 2004 (2nd ed.),
2678: no. 644; 35960: no. 429; 3723: no. 335.
6 See T.I. Makarova, Peregorodatye emali drevnej Rusi, Moscow,
1975, pls 15 and figs 56; W. Seipel (ed.), Gold aus Kiew: 170
Meisterwerke aus der Schatzkammer der Ukraine, Vienna, 1993, figs
on 2913, 295, 297, 3201, nos 11418, 132; Evans and Wixom (n. 1),
figs on 31011, 314, no. 212AG, 214A; D.S. Lihaev et al., Velikaja
Rus: istorija i hudoestvennaja kultura XXVII veka, Moscow, 1994,
col. pls III: 26, 29, 31, 334, 36ab; col. pl. V: 26; B.A. Rybakov,
Remeslo drevnej Rusi, Moscow, 1948, figs 80, 83, 89; B.A. Rybakov,
Russkoe prikladnoe iskusstvo XXIII vekov, Leningrad, 1971, figs
245, 37, 41, 4956, 143; M.V. Sedova, Juvelirnye izdelija drevnego
Novgoroda (XXV vv), in A.V. Artsihovskij and B.A. Kolin (eds),
Trudy novgorodskoj arheologieskoj ekspeditsii, II, Materialy i
issledovanija po arheologii SSSR 65, Moscow, 1959, figs 1/1317;
M.V. Sedova, Juvelirnye izdelija drevnego Novgoroda (XXV vv),
Moscow, 1981, figs 1/5, 5/111.
7 Lukina (n. 5), 2501; I.I. Sreznevskij, Materialy dlja slovara
drevnerusskogo jazyka, Moscow, 1958 (reprint of the 1893 edition),
s.v. ; Slovar russkogo jazyka XIXVII vv. (hereafter SRJa),
VII, Moscow, 1980, s.v. .
8 In fact, the word koltki and its variants continued to be used in
local dialects well into the 20th century. In the modern period,
these words denoted earrings, earring pendants, or earrings with
pendants: cf. N.P. Kondakov, Geschichte und Denkmler des
byzantinischen Emails, Frankfurt, 1892, 3434; Slovar russkih
narodnyh govorov, XIV, Leningrad, 1978, s.v. /,
, /, , /,
; Lukina (n. 5), 2501; SRJa (n. 7), VII, s.v. ;
Bolaja Sovetskaja Entsiklopedija (hereafter BSE), XII, Moscow,
1973 (3rd ed.), s.v. . The claims that in modern Russian the
word kolty designates temple rings (K.R. Brown, Russo-
Byzantine jewellery in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, Apollo
111/215 [1980], 6), or indeed, rings or hoops (Griffin [n. 1], 8) are,
thus, incorrect. In the scholarship of the region, the archaeological
term temple rings, to the best of my knowledge, has never been
used for the ornaments known as kolty. The erroneous claim that
kolty denotes rings or hoops could have arisen from the confusion
of the word with the modern (=ring or hoop).
9 See Sedova 1959 (n. 6), figs 1/110; Rybakov 1948 (n. 6), figs 16, 24,
13031; Rybakov 1971 (n. 6), figs 5, 710; R.L. Rozenfeldt, Raskopki
kurganov u s. Bitjagovo v 19681970 gg., Sovetskaja arheologija
(1973/1), figs 3/117, 214 on 195; Saburova 1974 (n. 3), fig. 5 on 92;
E.A. Rjabinin, Kostromskoe Povole v epohu srednevekovja,
Leningrad, 1986, pl. 1; T.I. Makarova et al., Ukraenija iz
dragotsennyh metallov, splavov, stekla, in Kolin and Makarova (n.
3), pl. 51.
10 For instance, in Korzuhina (n. 5), and Rybakov 1971 (n. 6), 36, 38.
This taxonomic inconsistency becomes particularly striking in
cases where ear ornaments of the same type are called both
earrings and temple rings within a single publication, despite the
fact that some of them were found in hoards and thus lack reliable
evidence for the way in which they were worn. Compare, for
instance, nos 11923 (=Ohrgehnge) with no. 135 (=Schlfenring)
in Seipel (n. 6), and nos 93, 956, 10001, 103 and 105 (=) to
no. 97 (= ) in V. M. Vasilenko, Russkoe prikladnoe
iskusstvo: istoki i stanovlenie, Moscow, 1977.
11 The word earrings was used for ornaments of this type mostly in
early publications, when the relevance of the term kolty for
medieval artefacts was still being discussed (Kondakov [n. 8], 343
4; N. Kondakov, Russkie klady, St Petersburg, 1896, 1956).
Conversely, in the Large Soviet Encyclopaedia, kolt is described as a
pendant attached to the headdress, rather than an earring (BSE [n.
8], XII, s.v. ).
12 Zaliznjak (n. 5), 2678: no. 644, and 3723: no. 335; Lukina (n. 5),
248, 2501; Sreznevskij (n. 7), s.v. ; SRJa (n. 7), VII, s.v.
. The word yccpA,u/eyccpA,u is also attested for ear
ornaments in 12th 14th-century Rus sources, but seems to have
gone out of use shortly thereafter (Zaliznjak [n. 5], 35960, no. 429;
Lukina [n. 5], 250).
13 Evidence of this type exists only for the more recent periods. In the
18th20th centuries, as well as now, the word //
denotes earrings, while the word / signifies a ring,
hoop, link of a chain and, in general, any object shaped as a circle or
hoop (Slovar russkogo jazyka XVIII veka, X, St Petersburg, 1998, s.v.
). For the meaning of the word and its variants in the
19th20th centuries, see n. 8 above.
14 | cc aoc,ooy ucooec+o cu ,ao+uu seau, uc oeoc a+ yum
caecm. D.I. Abramovi and L. Mller, Die altrussischen
Hagiographischen Erzhlungen und liturgischen Dichtungen ber
die Heiligen Boris und Gleb, Munich, 1967, 24; Lukina (n. 5), 248.
15 For illustrations, see Makarova (n. 6), figs 56 and pls 610; Evans
and Wixom (n. 1), fig. on 312, no. 213AB; Lihaev et al. (n. 6), col. pl.
III: 31; A. L. Mongajt, Staraja Rjazan, Materialy i issledovanija po
arheologii SSSR 49, Moscow, 1955, fig. 115/1; Makarova et al. (n. 9),
pl. 42/11.
16 For illustrations, see Rybakov 1948 (n. 6), fig. 82 on 316; Seipel (n.
6), figs on 295: nos 11617, and 320: no. 133; Lihaev et al. (n. 6), col.
pl. III: 29.
17 B.A.Rybakov,Znakisobstvennostivknjaeskomhozjajstve
Kievskoj Rusi XXII vv., Sovetskaja arheologija 6 (1940), 251;
Rybakov 1948 (n. 6), 31617, 338, 3834; B.A. Rybakov, Drevnosti
ernigova, in N.N. Voronin (ed.), Materialy i issledovanija po
arheologii drevnerusskih gorodov, I, Materialy i issledovanija po
arheologii SSSR 11, Moscow/Leningrad, 1949, 58, figs 23 (top) and
25 (middle).
18 Korzuhina (n. 5), 534.
19 Rybakov 1948 (n. 6), 31617, 383; Makarova (n. 6), 40; Griffin (n. 1),
6, 8.
20 For instance, see Seipel (n. 6), fig. 13 on 52 (after M. Rusjaeva);
Saburova 1997 (n. 3), pls 71, 73.
21 V.K. Gonarov, Rajkovetskoe gorodi e, Kiev, 1950, 10708.
22 Korzuhina (n. 5), 54, and 109, no. 69.
23 One hoard contained three pairs (and some fragments) of silver
star-shaped kolty, as well as semi-cylindrical and triangular
elements of the same material which have been reconstructed as
four straps for the suspension of kolty. The other hoard contained a
pair of circular kolty made of silver and decorated with niello, and
semi-cylindrical elements reconstructed as two suspension straps.
Both hoards also consisted of other objects: V. P. Darkevi and V. P.
Frolov, Starorjazanskij klad 1974 g., in T.V. Nikolaeva (ed.),
Drevnjaja Rus i Slavjane, Moscow, 1978, 3423 and figs 15 on 344
8; V.P. Darkevi and A.L. Mongajt, Klad iz Staroj Rjazani, Moscow,
1978, 6, 9, nos 34, and pls 23. For another hoard found at Staraja
Rjazan containing a single strap of the same type, see V.P. Darkevi
and A.L. Mongajt, Starorjazanskie klady 1967 g., Sovetskaja
Intelligible Beauty | 211
Temple Pendants in Mediaeval Rus
arheologija (1972/2), 207, and fig. 3 on 208.
24 If the straps were indeed correctly reconstructed. The semi-
cylindrical and triangular strap elements were found detached and
in fragments, with only part of them surviving and having been
subjected to reconstruction.
25 Each of the straps found with the circular kolty in the second Rjazan
hoard is 15.5cm long in its reconstructed state (Darkevi and
Mongajt 1978 [n. 23], 9, nos 34). In contrast, the gold straps made
of semi-cylindrical segments and ending in a chain and an open
hoop which were found near Sahnovka in Ukraine are 22cm long (P.
Dandridge and O.Z. Pevny, Temple pendants and suspension
chains, Evans and Wixom [n. 1], 313, no. 214B). The straps
constructed of hinged gold or silver plates were even longer: each of
the two complete examples from a gold and enamelled pair found
in the Tithe church at Kiev, for instance, measures 31.1cm in length
(K.R. Brown, Ceremonial ornaments, in Evans and Wixom [n. 1],
313, no. 213A).
26 Darkevi and Mongajt 1972 (n. 23), 207; Darkevi and Frolov (n. 23),
34243, 351.
27 For instance, neither of the two pairs of kolty excavated in burials at
ernigov in 1878 and 1883, respectively, are reported to have been
accompanied by suspension equipment (Korzuhina [n. 5], 52). This
may be due to the summary method of excavation and publication
in this period, but could also mean that alternative methods of
suspension were used for these objects.
28 Rybakov 1948 (n. 6), figs 77/5 and 83/; Rybakov 1949 (n. 17), figs 23
(bottom right), 26 (top right). Korzukhina called these wire devices
clasp rings and believed that they were used for the suspension of
kolty (Korzuhina [n. 5], 138, no. 152/1, and 12021, no. 103/22).
29 I.S. Vinokur et al., Re ovij skarb iz litopisnogo Gubina, Arheologija
2003/1, figs 89 on 59 and figs 1516 on 62.
30 See pp. 21718 above, and Pls 12c,e and 14h. The coiled wire devices
appear to be related to temple rings of simple hoop shape with
overlapping ends which were found elsewhere on the territory of
medieval Rus.
31 Saburova 1974 (n. 3), 856, 8991; Agapov and Saraeva (n. 3), 101
07, figs 13.
32 Saburova 1974 (n. 3), 86, 88; Saburova and Sedova (n. 3), 11418.
33 Saburova 1997 (n. 3), 108, pl. 75/10.
34 Ibid., 108, pl. 75/9.
35 Saburova 1974 (n. 3), 868, 91.
36 Ibid., 88; Saburova 1975 (n. 3), 1819; Saburova 1997 (n. 3), 108, pl.
73/3. It should be noted that reports on traces of leather headgear
and suspension equipment in burials should be treated with
caution, as some of the fragments believed to be straps on which the
temple rings were suspended, upon forensic analysis turned out to
be pieces of human ears: see Agapov and Saraeva (n. 3).
37 Saburova 1997 (n. 3), 108, pl. 75/13.
38 Ibid., 108, pl. 75/9.
39 E.A. inakov, Naselenie verhnego teenija reki Psl v XIXII vv. (po
materialam Goevskogo arheologieskogo kompleksa), Vestnik
Moskovskogo universiteta, ser. 8, Istorija (1982/2), 93; Saburova 1974
(n. 3), 889; Saburova 1997 (n. 3), 10809, pls 78/1 and 78/3. For the
parallel use of hoop-like ornaments on finds from Poland and the
Czech Republic, see P.M. Barford, The Early Slavs: culture and
society in Early Medieval Eastern Europe, London, 2001, fig. 37
(bottom left) on 361, and J. Schrnil, Die Vorgeschichte Bhmens und
Mhrens, Berlin/Leipzig, 1928, 2978, pl. LXVIII/8.